Not That There's Anything Wrong With That!

I could have sworn I wrote about it before, but checking through the old posts, I didn't!  I guess I must have got my ranting and raving done at work or something.  Anyway, in case you missed it in in 2012 when the story was thoroughly NOT reported by the dysfunctional press corps in the USA, a study has been done.

Professor Regenerus, of the University of Texas at Austin got in some serious hot water with those who disagreed with the result of his for-serious scientific study.  He called it his New Family Structures Study and wrote an article about it, "How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study" He found that if you grew up in a regular mom-and-dad home, you are way, WAY more likely to be a well-adjusted, non-drug-using, haven't-been-molested, identifies-as-heterosexual, non-multiple-sex-partner-having, stays-out-of-trouble-with-the-law type of person.  By a very wide margin, in some cases.

I, of course, being a racist/sexist/bigot/homophobe, was not surprised at these findings.  I went on and on about it at the time.  Just now I remembered to say something here because Borepatch linked to where Briggs reposted an article about the article about the study.  Thanks to Borepatch, Wm. Briggs, and especially Professor Mark Regenerus.

Against "Gay Marriage"

Because words, and mental order, mean things.

I disapprove because

a) Marriage is (by definition) between a man and a woman
b) Homosex is a symptom of deep mental disorder, and is not done by well-minded people
c) As (see b), above) they cannot be fully sane, queers cannot be good parents so
d) Queers shouldn't be allowed to have children by the State, if the State has any role in the adoption of children
e) if you want to have a civil union that's fine . . . but it's not a marriage

Buggery is an evolutionary dead-end engaged in by sick people. If you want to have some sort of officially sanctioned economic union between people based on a criterion of their choice, fine. Don't let it be one where they can screw up the heads (and bodily orifices) of small children who never did anything to deserve it. Union based on double-donging it? Fine. Based on being cousins who take care of each other? Fine. Tax advantages for everybody (or nobody)! but it's not a marriage

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Everybody knows (or should) that one of the main risk factors for "getting AIDS" is being a homersexual. One of the fun side effects of AIDS is affectionately referred to by cancer doctors as Oral Plasmablastic Lymphoma. It's cancer, your MOUTH, that pretty much is a death sentence within 6 months.

Let's see, what do queers do with their mouths that might call for some specific judgement from God . . . hmmm . . .

. . .nope, can't think of anything! Oh well, nevermind then.

For the Sake of Clarity

On the day when the people behind California's "Proposition 8" queer marriage amendment were recognized by the Court in California as having standing to sue to uphold that law, a brief discourse on the real question at hand: the English language. Words mean things.

Marriage: A man and a woman agree in the sight of godnevrybody to stay together for EVAR. The State recognizes their union and treats them more like family than like strangers. This has been the case since the beginning, when the first man married the first woman. Marriage is, by definition, between a man and his wife. Not and his dog, and not and his [deleted]-buddy. Marriage is not what it is called when you paint yourself purple with yellow polka-dots.

But people who had a bad relationship with their daddy and were subjected to government "education" are a little fuzzy on this. They want to be married, but they want to abuse themselves the one with the other in a way their bodies were not designed to be used. AND they want to call themselves "married." So there is a fuss over the term and the governmental reaction to the people to whom the term applies.

If you say your boyfriend and you deserve the same marriage rights as everyone else, I happily agree. However, there is a semantic difference. I, recognizing that words mean things and that "marry" means man+woman=family, and am happy to recognize your marriages . . . to women. You have the right just like every other MAN to marry a WOMAN. You do not have the right to call yourself "married" because you have painted yourself purple with yellow polka-dots. Just because you intend to stay purple your whole life, this does not mean you can be "married" because of your purpleness. Just because you intend to stay together for the rest of your lives, does not mean you can be "married" because of your buggery with your boyfriend. It is not possible for two men to be married, any more than it is possible for a man and the moon to make children together.

What you "feel" the word means is irrelevant. Words mean things, and two dudes does not make a married couple, regardless of how much you think you love and are committed to each other. Even if the State says so, you are still not "married."

But it is only the radicals who are fighting in the courts. Most of the queers you don't know you know just want to live their lives without economic disadvantage. A State-recognized Civil Union, with all the benefits attendant to marriage, would please most of them just fine. There is only one problem: the State has no business in this business. Unless we as a people are willing to state that queers are the equal of straights, morally, and that being together for sex and being together for family making are just as good as each other, the State has no business saying people of the same sex can be in recognized civil unions. Keep reading. Unless we as a people are willing to state that queers are morally inferior, and that family making is a worthy cause to support, the State also has no business in the marriage business.

Hold on there.

Yes, I just said the State should not give married persons special recognition and/or benefits. Not until there is an official recognition that marriage is superior for society than not-marriage.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. If they follow most of the worlds' traditions, it is one man and one woman, promising God and each other they will stay together until one of them dies. Taxes and real-estate deeds don't enter into the picture at ALL.

********
This, obviously, was directed at men wanting to be married to men. Change the sexes and the same arguments hold for wymyn also. And yes, there IS something wrong with it.

Lives Will Be Ruined

. . . but it's fashionable to tolerate such things in the days in which we live.

So New York passed a law permitting queers to call themselves married and receive the attendant benefits. They are not the first, probably not the last. Oh, how sweet, they might want to have children! Next up: several years of lawsuits shopped to Democrat-appointed judges. Then a few decades of allowing people with a need for mental health care to adopt children, ruin the children's minds, and all sorts of horrendous outcomes the left will poo-pooh if you call it ahead of time. Then, if we're still in one piece, a period of sober policy re-examination followed by bans or restrictions on various queer "family" arrangements. This pendulum has very, very far to swing to the left. If it swings back right, it could be pretty wild.

Or instead of legislating, you could leave it to the voters (who pretty reliably turn out against queers calling themselves "married" in the USA). But then the governors don't get to take part in the fabulous "Gay Pride" parades, so . . . nah!

You People Fail At Science.

A skeleton was found buried without any sex-specific artifacts, in a very old grave. Women in the decedent's culture were buried facing the same direction as this dead body was facing. No DNA testing has been done on the bones. It is not always easy to determine sex from visual examination of bare human skeletal remains. What is the obvious conclusion any high-quality scientist will certainly draw from this find?

GAY/TRANSGENDER/3rd SEX SKELETON FOUND IN CZECH REPUBLIC!!!!1!

Quote of the day: "To state unequivocally that this individual was a homosexual or heterosexual transvestite, or indeed anything else, on the available evidence is at best somewhat speculative and at worst sensationalistic," -James Adovasio, executive director, Mercyhurst Archaeological Institute

When I first heard of this story, I had two immediate reactions: "Talk about your arguments from silence," and, "What do you want to bet the scientist that made this amazing "discovery" is a queer?"

I will be glad to ROFL if they get around to DNA testing and find XX instead of XY in the bones. You know what? Some chicks have skinny hips. Some of them these days even look like dudes when they are ALIVE, fashion trends being what they are. To claim that this is a gay person's burial before knowing the corpse was male is the height of irresponsible sensationalistic reporting (in other words, the best way to get a fat research funding grant without having done anything significant). A more right-thinking individual would say "gee she has a narrow pelvic opening! Let's run some more tests before going public . . . "

Of course there is also the possibility that we are not dealing with a right-thinking person. We could have a scientist who is herself queer, or a closeted queer, or bi/curious, who found an irrefutable way to project her sexual uncertainties onto a dead woman. We could have someone interested in promoting a queer lifestyle as an historical norm. We could have, in short, a lot of different ways the archeologists in this case are coming to silly conclusions based on moot evidence.

Moderately-surprising in today's "reporting" is the way nobody seems to be questioning the idea that there were transgendered people 'way back when, who were accepted by society as such to the extent they were buried the wrong way. A third gender? Really? Find me three reputable scientific references to any such thing from prior to 1950, I dare you.

This News Is Bigoted.

Not the reporting, the actual facts contained in the story. Reality itself is bigoted against gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered/etc. freaky people.

It turns out that, if you are a queer, you have a much higher likelihood of ending up crazy, sickly, and lonely. That, of course, in addition to the very real previously-known health problems caused by/associated with queer sex.

Your parts were designed, by a designer, to fill specific functions. Don't go using them in unapproved ways and you're statistically less likely to have mental and physical health problems, as well as more likely to not be alone.

See? Bigoted. Statistics may not lie, but they sure can be politically-incorrect!

I Want To Be Purple.

If a man can marry a woman, then the sun can be dark, and I can be a purple toad.

Doublethink from B.O.: Suddenly we are to stop defending the DOMA. The country's highest law enforcement official and the department head in charge of enforcing civilian law decide on their lonesome they don't have to do their job defending and enforcing duly enacted laws.

You stay classy, Barry and Secretary.

The leftists of course are just fine with this turn of events, as it suits their ideological preference. Let a Republican President say he no longer feels like enforcing the law against discriminating against women in the workplace, and watch how they would erupt!
********

You know who else ignored the law when it suited them?

Therapist Helps People? That's Insensitive!

When I was a lad, my suspicion of government interference in private affairs was fertilized by a story I read. The protagonist got in Big Trouble because he not only wrote a book, but asked if a friend wanted to read it after the friend asked about the work.

And in the place where England used to be, in real life, you can lose your professional license for responding to what looked like a plea for help from someone with a voluntary self-harmful behavior. Queer activists succeed there beyond the wildest dreams (well . . . ) of queer activists on this side of the pond.

Dr. Laura said -before she went soft on homersexuals- the end-game of the normalization of deviant sexuality is being able to have sex with children with impunity. You are to be jailed for your failure to recognize that they HAVE TO do what you recognize is destructive, sinful, disgusting, and just plain wrong to the most defenseless among us.

Coming soon to a country near you, if you will let it.

DADT Repeal Didn't Happen

The old way was: If you're queer, you're too crazy to serve. Kicked out. Along came CinC "Slick Willie" Clinton, and the rule changed to "Don't ask, don't tell." The press and queer lovers everywhere are crowing today about the "REPEAL OF DON'T ASK DON'T TELL." The problem is, it didn't happen; that only goes to show how *ahem* intelligent these people are.

If it were repealed, DADT would revert to Queer = Discharge. Instead, the reporting seems to imply that now "gay is okay" and that's hardly the same thing.

Words mean things. How about we insist on proper use of them.

********

This is off the cuff. The queer lovers could be in for a nasty surprise and it could be a straight repeal. I don't know. I care so much about the subject I haven't done the first bit of research into it.

In case you missed it, my Official Take on DADT can be found here.

Queers Are Ambivalent; Marxists Are Not.

In light of the recent re-overturning of Prop. 8 in California, there has been much commentary, but only Savage has provided the critical insight required to understand "why all the fuss?"

Typically, 'gays' don't want to call themselves purple, call themselves fish, or call themselves married. They want civil union privileges and equitable treatment for their "partnerships" when compared to marriage unions.

Typically, 'straights' don't want queers to call themselves computers, giraffes, or married. They want queers in long-term meaningful relationships not to be discriminated against just because they can never be married.

So who is agitating for the 'right' of queers to marry?

Marxists*. Marx realized that as long as the corrupting influence of the family remains, the true collectivist society can never come into being. The family must be destroyed. They may be queer also, but the real activists for 'gay marriage' are, deep down, Marxists in the struggle for the international cause.

The secular core of our society is the family. When the family is eliminated by fools saying things like " . . . no rational basis . . . ." then society is that much closer to collapse.

Then, of course, we will need a dictator for a little while, and then we can have a worker's paradise!

********
*or useful idiots

Tolerance on College Campuses

Tolerance means you get to believe what I want, or you can't get a degree. At least, not from government-funded universities.

"Not that there's anything wrong with that!"

"Not That There's Anything Wrong With That!"

So said Jerry Seinfeld, just about anytime anything related to gays was mentioned on his sitcom. The audience knew it was an untrue thing to say, but he was making a point.

Why do I frequently talk bad about queers, you ask? Aside from the fact that God says their behavior is abominable, let's have a look at a few (dozen) secular reasons why being MSM or WSW is unhealthy. WARNING: Graphic text enclosed. Reader discretion is advised.

The Health Risks of Homosexuality, as described by a medical doctor. Read the whole thing, if your stomach is strong enough.

Hat tip to Moonbattery, where you can read about a religion professor who was fired for agreeing with a religion, against the practice of homosex.

"Not That There's Anything Wrong With That!"

Jerry Seinfeld said this annoying phrase from time to time on his long-running sitcom. It always irked me.

Michael Savage tried to get the bathhouses in San Francisco shut down when he saw an epidemic developing (when they were calling it GIDS). From there we progressed to widespread AIDS all over the country, because it is just too much to ask people not to have anonymous 'raw-dog' sex with each other in public places.

The results of a new study have come out, and there is a much-faster test for HIV infection than the one that waits for your body to develop an immune response. It looks at the disease process before you have had time to develop antibodies. This gives the "MSM" fellows who are being tested a somewhat smaller window of time in which to infect each other in the bathroom at the airport (or wherever). The hope is, the HIV infection rate will be reduced.

You know how you can reduce the HIV infection rate? STOP BUGGERING EACH OTHER that's how.

********

And no, for the record, nobody has yet convinced me that the current thing they are calling HIV is the actual cause of AIDS. And no, I will not stop saying to stop buggering each other because it hurts your feelings. God said not to, and golly-gee-whiz if it doesn't turn out to be a dangerous thing to do (this story highlights only one among many reasons). Not that you will start doing what God wants because of it, but it does rather prove a point or two of mine.

How Is This A Big Deal?

Various groups of tetchy people are all bent sideways that a photo of Elena Kagan playing softball was published. They say it's an accusation that she's a queeeeeer.

To me, it says she plays softball. You know who plays softball? People who want to have a fun game in medium-large groups, which does not require highly specialized, expensive equipment, huge expensive stadia, and with simple rules. Softball and baseball are America's version of soccer football. I remember as a boy watching my Uncle John half-lit on cheap American beer, playing slow pitch with a gang of decent-sort-of-people in a municipal park.

Just because queers play softball, doesn't mean ONLY queers play softball. This is a non-issue in my opinion.

If you don't want her being called a queer, how about telling her to come out as a breeder. No? Then how about we drop the subject altogether? She's hugely unqualified for the position to which she is nominated. If she's a queer or not, that's WAY down the list of reasons why you don't want her as a Justice.

You're Not Married, Butch.

Call it whatever you want to in Massachusetts, but in Texas we recognize that your genitalia has to be a matched set (vice duplicate pair) in order for you to be married to someone. Words still having meanings, and all.

So please don't come to Texas to try to break up your un-marriage. it won't work.

Because you're not married.

********

The sad part is, these people brought a child into the world when, as any right-thinking observer could have told them, this 'union' was very likely to be a train wreck from the start. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say "+1 messed up kid needing therapy in 5 years"

Austin to Co-Sponsor Gay Pride Parade?

The queers have been having their day to party and do various mentally-disordered things with each other in Austin for the past several years now, calling it a 'gay pride parade'.

The local radio news announces that Austin's city council has been thinking it would be a great idea to take money from Austinites at gunpoint, to give money to co-sponsor the gay pride parade, because it brings so much money to the town.

a) why not let it continue to bring money to the town without taking money from taxpayers in Austin for the purpose?

b) Austinites, why haven't you contacted your city council member to protest this potential use of your money? Oh wait, you don't HAVE a member representing you.

c) Why haven't you run for a spot on the city council yet? What will it take to get the normal people to finally take the city by the halls? Will you really let it turn into another San Francisco?

Don't Ask, Don't Tell Is GOOD Policy.*

Chairman Mullen says regarding the DADT policy: "we have in place a policy that forces young men and women to lie about who they are"

Bullshit

It requires them to not come out and tell god-and-everybody they enjoy doing things that ought not to be done.

What you do with your jimmy is not 100% of your personality, if you are a normal person with a sound mind. If it is so all-consuming a part of your ever-lovin' self that EVERYONE YOU KNOW must know what you like to do with your jimmy, you have bigger problems than what you do with your jimmy. Mental problems, of the sort that only Jesus can fix.

Don't Ask/Don't Tell is a fairly good way to weed out those persons who are so mentally-disordered that they cannot contain their sexual proclivities to off-hours clandestine action like their 'breeder' brothers-in-arms. If a man is schtupping his LT's wife and HAS TO blab about it, he is also unfit for service.

I had never given this serious thought but the conventional arguments around the topic always bothered me. Anti-DADT types tend to be (in my experience) either flamers or rather soft in the head. I never could come up with anything much more than a "What? Who thinks that?" when they erect the straw-man of potential retribution/assaults against queers in the service. Finally it occurred to me: DADT puts a mental check on people who need to be able to deal with mental checks. If you just can't refrain from telling your sergeant you suck [deleted]s, how can we be sure you will be stable under non-peacetime conditions NOT involving your junk? If you're too crazy to keep your crazies to yourself, you NEED to not be in the trenches. It's not that we couldn't deal with the ickyness of serving alongside a friggen homo (other countries' soldiers do so w/ no problem). . .

It's that you HAVE TO come out that's the problem, not that you're out.
********

*if we must have a policy at all. Frankly, if we are not going to have an official state church and we refuse to stick to even a basic set of morals, as long as you can keep it zipped up on-duty AND it doesn't interfere with your duties (neither is necessarily a guarantee, by the way) then we, as a country, don't have much of a basis for saying anything one way or another about what you do with your fiddly bits.**

**Longest sentence of the YEAR!

Go Vote Yes.

The queers are all bent out of shape that the people at South Park finally* said the word they love, in a way they hate. If you think it's gay for the queers to get bent when an intentionally-offensive show calls non-fags, fags, go vote yes, here.

********
*it's fine for South Park to mock Christians, Jews, Nazis, Atheists, Men, Women, and to have the highly-offensive-to-sane-people Big Gay Al's Big Gay Animal Farm, but God** forbid that they should use slang that was common for the past 30 years, that's just too much!

**not that we believe in one, but you breeders have gone too far!

Sure, Why Not? Public Gay Sex Orgy Tents.

San Francisco is a pretty good place to find an example of every thing the Muslims use to scare people back into their "conservative" way of life, and embrace nominal adherence to islam. In other words, San Franciscans have about the world's lowest standards of morality.

They have street fairs to celebrate 'diversity' sometimes in S.F. The queers go to street fairs and bugger each other in the street, right out in the open. The solution to this is, apparently, to consider having a tent where they can go bugger each other. In public. Because, you know, they were born that way wanting to go have unprotected anonymous sex in public. It's in their jeans, you see, not that they are mentally deranged.

Don't believe it? Click the link and read the entry at Moonbattery, then click through to some disgusting photographs at Zombietime.